I normally ride in Zone 2 ... until I encounter a hill, then I'm up in Zone 4 or 5. I rarely ride in Zone 3 for some reason (although I will ride there on the trainer), and find it very difficult to ride in Zone 1.

I have been a sprinter on the track (track and Field) my whole life and cycling has been a past time for me. Now that I am half way through college and have given up on the track and field thing I am dedicating myself to cycling. My delema is I have been a sprinter my whole life and am now trying to do an endurance event. I have read this Lance Armstrong Performance training book and am trying to follow the work outs. It says to build endurance I need to ride for 1 hour in zone 2. I feel when I ride in Zone 2 I am not working out anything nor building endurance. I will start to feel a little workout in zone 3 and feel the burn in zone 4. Is this normal? To build endurance do I just need to stay in zone 2 and I will gradually ride faster and faster in zone 2. Right now to be in zone 2 I average 12mph.

Ride longer in zone two and see if you feel like your getting a workout. If an hour is easy go to 1.5 or 2 hrs; if that's too easy, go longer. You won't feel the same on a muscular level that you would feel from a sprinting workout...and that's not what you are after anyhow.

Make sure that you are using appropriate %'s for the zones. The zone's in the calc above may be different from what your training source recommends.

I have been a sprinter on the track (track and Field) my whole life and cycling has been a past time for me.

12mph in zone 2 seems pretty slow, you're probably not even breaking a sweat. Make sure your zones are correct. Where are you getting your zone info? My max is similar to yours, but based off the Friel book (5 zones, not 6), I don't hit zone 3 until 160 bpm. At 150-155, I can hold a conversation and pedal along at close to 20 mph.

By staying in zone 2, you're training your body to work primarily off of fat. The workload is low and your body has the time to convert the fat to fuel for your muscles. As you get into zone 3 and 4, your body has to start going increasingly for carbs. They convert to fuel much quicker. Since you're training is as a sprinter, your body has never had to go to fat for fuel, it's always relied on the natural stores in the muscle. After about 1 minute max, though, those are gone. You have to train your body where to go after that fuel.

The PE of harder to breathe and muscle burn in zones 3 and 4 seems about right. So I think there might just be some sort of disconnect some place.

Honestly, if you're just starting out riding, then get out and ride. Don't worry as much about HR zones or organized training. Put miles in. Go hard enough to wear yourself out a 2-4 times a week and do one slower, longer ride that doesn't wear you out. You've been an athlete for long enough you know how you should feel. After 6 months of riding consistently, then maybe start to pay more attention to he HR monitor. Initially, you're just going to be building the muscles you need to ride well and making your sit-bones tough.

Since MHR is hard to find and LTHR is relatively easy, I just plug in MHR figures until zone 5 is what I already know it to be. Working it that way, all the zones come out the way they should, in terms of my experience of training effort at those HRs.

On the sprinter discussion, I'm really a sprinter too, but there's not much call for it recreationally, so I do a lot of climbing. I'm 63 and just got back from a 41 mile ride with an average HR of 124, near the top of my zone 2. I tried to keep it in zone 2, except when I needed to go up, when I let it climb a little, still keeping the effort moderate, not more than zone 3. I also "banged my legs" a couple of times on some short steep stuff. That's how you do a zone 2 workout. I averaged 18, but there was only 1000' of climbing though it was quite windy.

It takes a long time - a couple years or so - to get the heart and blood vessel sizes up there. When you do, these zones will make a lot of sense. Until then, I'd pretty much ignore it and just put in the miles, as others have said.

Machka, it doesn't seem to do any good to name zones unless they correlate to a specific training agenda. Is there a plan that relates to this? For instance that chart is different from both Carmichael's and Friel's.

Machka, it doesn't seem to do any good to name zones unless they correlate to a specific training agenda. Is there a plan that relates to this? For instance that chart is different from both Carmichael's and Friel's.

My training agenda is to lose weight. So I need to stay out of Zones 4 and 5, and keep my rides in Zones 1, 2 & 3 ... mostly. It was just interesting for me to see approximately where the heart rate cut off was between Zones 3 & 4.

Do you have links to similar sites for Carmichael's and Friel's Zone calculations?

My training agenda is to lose weight. So I need to stay out of Zones 4 and 5, and keep my rides in Zones 1, 2 & 3 ... mostly. It was just interesting for me to see approximately where the heart rate cut off was between Zones 3 & 4.

Do you have links to similar sites for Carmichael's and Friel's Zone calculations?

Note the large differences between these methods and the %HRmax method from the original post, especially in the low zones (1 & 2). The descriptions of the zones, however, tend to be similar. This is clearly not an exact science.

Note the large differences between these methods and the %HRmax method from the original post, especially in the low zones (1 & 2). The descriptions of the zones, however, tend to be similar. This is clearly not an exact science.

My training agenda is to lose weight. So I need to stay out of Zones 4 and 5, and keep my rides in Zones 1, 2 & 3 ... mostly.

Curious to hear why you think you need to stay in zones 1,2 to lose weight? Training in the higher zones burns more calories, thus more fat calories, only faster. Bottom line, at the end of the day, its all about total calories...the more burned...the more fat cals burned, the more weight loss.

That whole, "i have to do low intensity cardio to lose weight" is a myth , besides try doing intervals from zone 2 to zone 4, rest and repeat, and see how much weight falls off ya!

Interesting. Zone 3 is where I ride on the flats, or "recovery" But I have to be careful, as I would hit zone 6 easily on a number of hills, especially as I tire a bit. I just did my first metric century, and if I take out the hour of rest, I was at the bottom of zone 4. [66miles, 4:10 on computer, 5:17 on the HRM, measly 15.5mph on flat ground average! 143/190 bpm avg/max, (192 was my max last year), but only min of 90 during any rest period.] I probably need to learn to take it a bit easier...

Curious to hear why you think you need to stay in zones 1,2 to lose weight? Training in the higher zones burns more calories, thus more fat calories, only faster. Bottom line, at the end of the day, its all about total calories...the more burned...the more fat cals burned, the more weight loss.

That whole, "i have to do low intensity cardio to lose weight" is a myth , besides try doing intervals from zone 2 to zone 4, rest and repeat, and see how much weight falls off ya!

I don't believe it is a myth. Plus, riding slower allows me to stay out there longer and thus burn more calories than I would if I rode fast.

Curious to hear why you think you need to stay in zones 1,2 to lose weight? Training in the higher zones burns more calories, thus more fat calories, only faster. Bottom line, at the end of the day, its all about total calories...the more burned...the more fat cals burned, the more weight loss.

That whole, "i have to do low intensity cardio to lose weight" is a myth , besides try doing intervals from zone 2 to zone 4, rest and repeat, and see how much weight falls off ya!

Well, it's not quite as simple as "burn more calories, burn more fat calories". For a given person, the fat/carb ratio that you burn is dependent on the amount of power you're putting out. Low effort, mostly fat, high effort mostly carb. Obviously, as the power goes up, you burn more calories total, and burn more fat.

So, you should work harder to burn more fat, right?

Well, it's more complicated...

First of all, you can't ride as long if you ride really hard. So, riding really hard for an hour may burn less fat than riding for 3 hours at a slower rate. You are also training your body to be better at utilizing your fat stores, where you'll get less of that effect if you only ride hard.

So, both the long-distance lower-intensity rides and the intervals have a role to play.